Now
Fair
71°
High
77°
Low
54°

Lawmakers approve safe haven bill

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By NANCY HICKS / Lincoln Journal Star

Thursday, Feb 07, 2008 - 06:11:01 pm CST

After several years of arguing over the details of bills that would allow desperate mothers to legally leave their child in a safe place, senators gave final approval Thursday to Nebraska’s version of a “safe haven” law.

And depending on when Gov. Dave Heineman signs the bill into law, Nebraska will become the 49th or 50th state to provide places — generally hospitals and fire stations — where women can leave a baby, no questions asked.

Alaska’s governor is expected to sign that state’s safe haven bill into law at noon Monday in the Juneau Capitol. Heineman is expected to sign the Nebraska bill, but Jen Rae Hein, spokeswoman for the governor, had no other information.

Related Link(s):

Nebraska’s simple, two-sentence law is unique. It allows a parent to leave a child of any age at a hospital, without fear of prosecution for abandonment or child neglect.

“This is cutting-edge,” said Sen. Rich Pahls, one of two senators who last year sponsored safe haven bills. “There is nothing comparable.”

Most other states have set age limits of 72 hours to 30 days so that only infants can be left at a safe haven.

And if that twist — no age limit — becomes a problem, then senators in the future can change the law, said Sen. Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center, who made the issue his priority bill. The bill expanded far beyond what Stuthman said he originally intended. But the compromise, covering a child of any age, was necessary to get the bill through the Legislature, he said.

Stuthman said he expected the safe haven measure to be used primarily for infants and  hopes it will save lives. “I don’t want to see a baby dead in a dumpster,” he said.

Parents would learn that if they leave an older child at the hospital that child likely will be under the state’s control and perhaps in foster care for the next year, Stuthman said.

The two-sentence bill says this: “No person shall be prosecuted for any crime based solely upon the act of leaving a child in the custody of an employee on duty at a hospital licensed by the state of Nebraska. The hospital shall promptly contact appropriate authorities to take custody of the child.”

The law leaves all the details up to hospitals and the bureaucracy.  “So there are no hoops to jump through,” Pahls said. “You bring a baby to the hospital; it’s a done deal.”

There is already a legal system (the juvenile courts and the state’s foster care system) in place to handle the rest of the details, Pahls said.

Pressure for senators to pass a safe haven bill began to mount after Oprah Winfrey told millions of viewers in 2006 that three states —Nebraska, Alaska and Hawaii — did not have laws that allowed a mother to leave an infant without fear of prosecution.

Reach Nancy Hicks at 473-7250 or nhicks@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
INTERESTING wrote on February 7, 2008 12:07 pm:
" I was all for this bill until they put all children in to it. Why would it apply to anyone other than newborns??? This just another reason why this state backwards. "

Lisa wrote on February 7, 2008 12:58 pm:
" Is that common in other states? If parents give up their children they can ask for them back? That doesn't make any sense...

"

What took so long? wrote on February 7, 2008 1:18 pm:
" It didn't take Lincoln that long to put the smoking ban in affect, why did it take so long to get the Safe Haven Law! I guess that just goes to show how far behind Nebraska really is when it comes to change! "

Kevin wrote on February 7, 2008 2:22 pm:
" So you could drop off an 8 year old? "

Nina wrote on February 7, 2008 3:32 pm:
" Interesting, if you've read of the several tots who have died of abuse at the hands of parents in the past year, you would understand why children of any age need and deserve a safety net such as this bill provides. Pro-choice and pro-life people alike should support such a bill. Children are the most unprotected members of society, because they have no power, no resources. Their protection, well-being, and actual survival depends solely on adults. And since not all parents are responsible, competent or stable, decent and caring people of all political leanings, all ages and backgrounds should reach out to save these innocent children. This bill helps. "

a mom wrote on February 7, 2008 4:10 pm:
" I personally would never give up my children but not everyone is able or ready to be a parent even with nine months of waiting. I will admit if I were unable to care for my child or know that my child would be unsafe with me, I would want someplace safe to take her without facing criminal charges or the scorn of the public. No matter what the age of the child, I would rather see them dropped off at a safe haven then thrown off a bridge or whatever. "

Kevin wrote on February 7, 2008 4:32 pm:
" I agree wholeheartedly with protecting children. But I do have questions about not holding a parent responsible for a child after a certain age. "

concerned wrote on February 7, 2008 4:35 pm:
" My only hope is that the bill has considered and prepared for what really will become of these children. What if suddenly kids are being left (no babies, kids) by the boatload, because parents say they can't control them? I know for a fact that this is just a rampant problem (our juvenile court system overfloweth) and I'm concerned. I really hope that time proves me wrong. "

Michelle wrote on February 7, 2008 4:42 pm:
" I'm glad to see this bill covers ALL children. In any instance, A SURRENDERED child is BETTER than a DEAD CHILD!! They need our protection at ANY age!! "

J wrote on February 7, 2008 8:41 pm:
" After seeing situations within families and the way some children are treated, this bill is a godsend. I don't know how many people are going to drop off their older children, but I can tell you it's happend before when people contact the state or the police and say "Take this child before I do something bad."
I don't understand why someone would think that older children need less protection than newborns. It's heartbreaking to see these children hurt and neglected no matter how old they are. "

Jackie wrote on February 8, 2008 9:25 am:
" I feel that this safehaven law is to protect our children of the future. I agree with having this law but maybe a little on the fence about dropping off say a 8 year old?? Having a son and being a single parent it is hard and some days are better than others but i have resources and i have support, alot of mothers don't. On the other hand i wonder what happens to these mothers after the fact. No prosecution, but do they get any help coping with this decision and coming to terms with the choice?? I support the law, but again, a bit indecisive about certain aspects pertaining to the law. "

HMMMMMM wrote on February 12, 2008 3:35 pm:
" I know parents of teenagers who might want to take advantage of this new law. "